Being familiar with the processes of making films, and all the different ways it can be screwed up during production, I have said that exact line thousands of times. In this case, I'll guess either "Cowboys and Aliens" or the new stupid "3-D Night Sharks in the Lake" or whatever movie that is that just came out and sucks, because it's filmed in the day, and sharks don't live in fresh water lakes...

Oh, they're mutant sharks...

Nevermind.

My alternate pick:

"Body Of Evidence"

Madonna should have died at the BEGINNING!... Or, better yet, she should have been completely edited out, just as the corps played by Kevin Costner was in

That movie with jakegyllenhall where his consciousness keeps getting inserted onto a train that is going to blowup, and he has minutes to figure out what's going on and potentially change the course of actions?

Starship Troopers had an awful lot of interesting ideas and tons of action, but was a horrible movie.

RED-BUTTON ISSUE!!! I'm shocked that you thought that "movie" had any "thoughts" at all. Tons of illogical, completely unbelievable action, I think you meant.

The only thing it used from the book was the title. If you want truly interesting ideas, characters that are believable and well-written action, read it.

Unlike 1996, the power-armor (the equipment that is the actual star of the story) can be easily CGI'd these days. And someone either put Verhoeven in a coma or otherwise keep him on another continent when this movie is remade.

Cowboys And Aliens is kind of the opposite of what Althouse it looking for. The name alone lets you know it should be a cheesefest. And yet, somehow it works, at least according to Blake, who writes movie reviews in his spare time that are better than any of the "professional" ones I also read.

"Starship Troopers had an awful lot of interesting ideas and tons of action, but was a horrible movie.

"RED-BUTTON ISSUE!!! I'm shocked that you thought that 'movie' had any 'thoughts' at all. Tons of illogical, completely unbelievable action, I think you meant.

The only thing it used from the book was the title. If you want truly interesting ideas, characters that are believable and well-written action, read it.

Unlike 1996, the power-armor (the equipment that is the actual star of the story) can be easily CGI'd these days. And someone either put Verhoeven in a coma or otherwise keep him on another continent when this movie is remade."

Actually, STARSHIP TROOPERS was a great movie! Fun, funny, lots of action, great aliens, and yes, it had ideas: it was a satire on the original novel, and the suspiciously fascist or Nazi-like character of the earth side of the conflict--the uniform worn by Neil Patrick Harris, the pro-war commercial ads placed within the movie, the impossibly good-looking and virile young warriors--was intentional on the part of director Paul Verhoeven.

Great, great movie, and much better than the book. (I read the book and loved it as a teen; I reread it last year and found it, from an adult's point of view, rather thin. Not bad, but hardly the thrilling book I thought it was when I was younger.)

I would agree with that. I like Shyamalan. He just needed to take some advice on character development and dialogue. Once the plot twists were expected, he had nothing to fall back on. (I still have an intense love/hate for The Village for that reason.)

Unrelated: I will defend the Tron movies to my grave. The first was awesome as a kid. The second was the only move I've seen that justified 3D. In neither case was character development even relevant; you knew going in that it was just a vehicle for special effects.

(But I totally understand why people wouldn't like the Tron movies. I just have a different taste.)

A little more fleshing out:the idea was to fake a bomb attachment to a person against his will to succeed in a robbery.

It actually happened. The real-life event invloved an attachee who protested that he was an innocent victim who had been kidnapped while delivering a pizza. The kidnappers attached a bomb to his body and - the attachee stated - threatened to blow him up unless he robbed a bank. The attachee allegedly was in on the caper, however, and thought he was wearing a fake bomb.

His "buddies" had lied to him. The bomb was real, and he died in the explosion.

There is no such thing as a good idea which became a bad movie. Good ideas anticipate the problems which bad movies run afoul of. You can have a good, or at least an interesting, concept which is still a bad idea, but calling a good concept/bad idea a good idea is only a way of allowing failed writers and producers to excuse their wasting millions of dollars.

For real guesses, a million capers movies would fit the bill. How about Quick Change? Cool bank heist that could work, but most New Yorkers can find the airport just fine and who gives a crap if they can't anyway? Just drive south or west.

Does Cowboys and Aliens suck? I kind of wanted to see it. Not for the aliens so much as for daniel craig.

I saw it in the theaters a couple of weeks ago with some friends and we all thought it was good. Daniel Craig and Harrison ford were wonderful as were Clancy Brown, Keith Caradine and Walton Goggins. I thought that they played it pretty much as a straight western but with the hook of an alien abduction backdrop. Definitely a movie that could have been cheesy but wasn’t.

Starship Troopers had an awful lot of interesting ideas and tons of action, but was a horrible movie.

Agreed although I own the trilogy box set (it cost me a buck at Half-Price Books – marked at six but with a five dollar off coupon). Not a bad popcorn flick if you just watch it to see for the bugs and gratuitous SNV but definitely not in the class of the novel. I’d rank it somewhere between the “Fifth Element” and third “Matrix” movie.

Unlike 1996, the power-armor (the equipment that is the actual star of the story) can be easily CGI'd these days. And someone either put Verhoeven in a coma or otherwise keep him on another continent when this movie is remade.

They showed the Marauder armor in the third movie albeit for about fifteen minutes at the end. Also there was an anime adaptation in 1988 which used the armor long before CGI that was pretty good.

We're not talking about making another movie with the same premise, but doing this thing that was the set up of the plot of a movie, which was a bad movie."

OK, in that case I think "Heat" is the winner, which was only highly regarded because of the scene between DeNiro and Pachino, but was all in all not a great movie. Maybe is doesn't qualify because it certainly wasn't a horrible one, but anyway there was a real live heist which was inspired by the movie, with body armor, high powered weapons and all, which basically resulted in almost all the bad guys and a few cops getting killed the first time it was tried.

It may be the new Althouse movie: "Live, Love Blog," featuring romance on a Colorado mountain with a muscled up, bodice ripper from Cincinnati.

They live happily ever after in the Kingdom of CheeseLand.

Love it, but "Live, Love, Blog" (FIFY) doesn't have the happily ever after just yet.

You missed the part where, enraged at the rape of CheeseLand by the union slugs, spendthrift politicians, and their corrupt protectors in the police, they become a crack squad in the Army of Davids, exposing the hypocrisy and violence rampant all around them by day; by night, they are The UnAmbiguously Heterosexual Duo - New Meadia and The Creamy Hippie Love Chick, avenging evil by slicing off the hands of malefactors, before going back to their love nest where they rewrite the Kama Sutra for those over 60.

I would love to see Starship Troopers remade properly (especially with functioning Jump Suits. Although I think there would have to be a replacement species for the Skinnies - way too un-PC). Seeing Verhoeven do the RoboCop treatment to my favorite novel was almost as criminal as the atrocity that is Jar Jar Binks.

I liked both 30 Minutes or Less and Cowboys and Aliens, but I wasn't expecting cinematic brilliance, just entertainment. Both delivered.

As for the OP - give us a freaking hint, Althouse, or at least qualify what you consider a crappy movie. One person's Citizen Kane is another person's artsy-fartsy dreck.

Okay, big hint: It was a Madonna movie, but not the one that has already been named.

I've seen maybe three movies with Madonna in it and I'm pretty sure it's not "Dick Tracy" or "Die Another Day" so I'm guessing "Evita." Either that or "The Next Best Thing" (although I don't find the concept pretty interesting.

There ruprett goes playing the gay best friend agai. What is it with women with their gay best friends, and why is it always Ruprett Everett playing him in movies?

By the way I just happened to see the Julia Roberts movie where Rupert played her gbf, and it was cringe inducing. Especially when he sang Say a little prayer for me at a dinner party. That's when I got up and went into the other room to surf the web. It was simply too gay to bear.

I think I get the attraction, actually. Men and women don't really like each other, except sexually. That's why guys always like to hang out with the boys, and women like to hang out with the gals. Gay dudes get to be the male version of her female friends. By the same token, if we could meet hot female lesbians who like guy stuff, those would be our lesbian equivalent. Only butch lesbians usually look like ugly dudes, so that ends that fantasy.

Must have never traveled outside of Wisconsin. Hey, there is a whole world out there for you to trash, don't pick on Woody and Paris.Sweet, funny movie, made me want to go back to Paris even more than before.Philistine.

One might surmise when the myriad of intelligent people on this elevated blog haven't got a clue what the professor is thinking, that maybe, just maybe, the question is stupid and cryptic. That's just my opinion..I could be wrong. Finally, if you put a gun to my head and said, "Watch Madonna" I would say, pull the fucking trigger!

I was arguing that a gay man could form a household with a woman (assume a heterosexual woman) who wants children and a stable family. They both want the same thing and nobody is keeping a secret or hoping for something else. It's just a way to live that people might willing choose and make work. They could even marry.

I was told that's the plot of "The Next Best Thing." But actually, I don't think it's quite the plot, because I think in that movie the pregnancy is an accident.

Anyway, the crappiness of the movie doesn't establish that the idea to live like that is terrible.

Anyway, the crappiness of the movie doesn't establish that the idea to live like that is terrible.

The crappiness of the movie doesn't establish it, but a reasonably solid understanding of human nature and human interactions indicates that it's highly unlikely to work out anything like one's "it should work out" fantasies.

Does this all stem from the fact that Meade got you to go to Cowboys and Aliens? You're wishing that Meade were a bit more metro, so he'd be more into My Dinner With Andre?

Here's what you do: Wait til Meade's asleep, or better yet passed out; then slip a really tight rubber-band around the base of his scrotum. If he doesn't notice, a few months later, his nuts will drop off, and he'll absolutely love that movie.

Although I think there would have to be a replacement species for the Skinnies - way too un-PC)

I don’t know if you’ve been watching “The Falling Skies” on TNT but the aliens behind the invasion are referred to as “Slenders” and look a lot like the Skinnies from Starship Troopers. Also they control a race of bug-like aliens called "Skitters" who serve as their ground forces and have bipedal mechs similar to the mobile suits.

Great show and further proof that cable dramas are about the only good thing left on television.

I've thought about this hypo before. If I was a gay man, I think that the lifestyle of marrying a woman and raising children together would be very appealing.

The problem is that there isn't anything in it for the woman. If she is hetero, there are plenty of straight men she could marry. If she was lesbian, then she could have a female partner. It is plenty easy for lesbians to produce children--sperm banks, helpful guy friend etc.

I loved Starship Troopers as well, and loathed the movie (the only thing I liked about it was the introduction of other types of bugs). I think a decent movie is in there, but it won't be made in my time.

I'm sure there are some marriages in which the man is gay and the woman is straight, but both want a biological kid and a stable family.

But couldn't a woman have all that with a straight man? I mean, people are only "free" to marry to the extent that they can find someone to marry them, but why would a woman pick a gay man for this purpose?

In the gay man's case, he gets something that I'm sure some men value very highly -- he gets to have his own biological children. But, again, a straight woman can have that with a straight man. Unless there's something really unappealing about her -- and if there is, why would the gay man want to reproduce with her? Like, for instance, if she's hideously unattractive -- why would he want those genetics for his kid?

I agree that people might make this work. Especially if both are really and truly motivated by the desire to raise their own biological children, and that's what they value over all else. But if the dude is gay from the outset, and the woman has known this all along... it seems to require that she place near zero value on being with a husband who is sexually attracted to her/loves her in a romantic way. Why would this be the case?

If not, how is this any different than single motherhood or divorce with an amicable custody arrangement?

Both adults would be strongly susceptible to leaving the relationship, should an actual romantic partner come along.

If they do marry or live together, as soon as someone more fitting for either part of the "couple" happens along, the arrangement falls apart. Seriously, how many men (gay or straight) are going to want to live in the same house with another "couple" and their child(ren)?

Then, the "couple" separates leaving the child in the same position as a child of divorce.

was arguing that a gay man could form a household with a woman (assume a heterosexual woman) who wants children and a stable family. They both want the same thing and nobody is keeping a secret or hoping for something else. It's just a way to live that people might willing choose and make work. They could even marry.

Yes, but it wouldn't be True Love and True Love is what the movies tell me is the most important, bestest thing in the world.

I could have sworn you were talking about "Cowboys and Aliens." Good thing my favorite local theater has a senior citizen's discount. Saved me from regretting spending $20 between myself and my dearly beloved. We only wasted $13.

Cowboys & Aliens was -- a cheesefest. Fun. Nothing to stretch the brain. And Daniel Craig was cool. (I told hubby he would have to suspend disbelief. In the middle he leans over and says "You weren't kidding.")

And whoever mentioned the original Tron? One of my favorites.

As for the answer to the Professor's tease?

I have no idea. (Although Dinner with André was the first thing which crossed my mind.)